|
All I can tell you is to look at it like a math problem because that's all it basically is. That Cha 7 is just a part of the equation.
10 + 5 = 15
5 + 5 + 5 = 15
8 + 1 + 4 + 2 = 15
Three different ways to reach the same goal.
Only if you start from the assumption that social interaction is a skill check, which I don't.
If your 7 charisma character rescued the orphan girl in front of the whole town, he would become a local hero. That isn't a number, that is a subjective circumstance bonus adjudicated by the GM.
If he were to interact with someone in town, I think a reasonable GM would take into consideration the fact that he is a local hero, and that would effect how people react to him.
Similarly, the BBEG who was trying to sacrifice the orphan as part of his plot to take over the world may now specifically have issues with that player.
These are all subjective bonuses that I believe occur in most, if not all games, that are not skill checks.
My entire argument is that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are also factors that a GM should consider. The weight of that consideration varies from table to table, situation to situation, NPC to NPC. How a character defines why they are above or below average is between the GM and the PC to work out.
But it is a factor.
You seem to be arguing that generic interaction is informed by the Diplomacy skill. If this is your position, I fundamentally disagree with you, as it isn't what the skill is described as doing and it isn't in the crunch of the description. It would be like arguing you can use intimidate to make someone think you are charismatic. Diplomacy not only has very specific applications that require interactions, it has a time limitation for effectiveness. Diplomatic negotiation is a type of interaction, it is not a replacement for personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
If it isn't what you are saying, I apologize. But I also ask...
What I am trying to do here is show you why someone who doesn't have a natural charisma can still achieve the same goal as someone who has a natural talent for it but requires more work to achieve the same goal.
Let's use your example of saving the orphaned girl. After you save the girl let's say you gain a level and are entitled to a feat. You take Skill Focus Diplomacy. You can sit there and plan your reasoning of the feat around the fact that you saved the girl and got into good standings with the town. You see confidence can be built around the attention of others. If the whole town knows about the good deed and they go out of their way to praise you and reward you every chance you get then your confidence should begin to rise, of course this isn't true for everyone. So in other words, you can go from a "Zero" to a "Hero". Sometimes towns have the local hero be asked to speak in other towns or at town functions, this would also build up ones' confidence.
A low charisma doesn't keep anyone from being a good diplomat if they follow through with hard work and a few instances that help them along.
Let me give you an example. I'm not sure if you are familiar with "Dancing with the Stars" but they had a guy that is an Iraq war veteran who was severely disfigured because a roadside bomb exploded near him. He was at the point of committing suicide but he actually got a part in a soap opera because of his disfigurement which in turn landed him on "Dancing with the Stars" which in turn landed him on talk shows and all the while slowly building up his confidence to where he is perfectly comfortable on television and talks about what happened. He has a beautiful wife and a great career ahead of him. The only difference is he had to work harder to achieve his goal.
You have to look at all the factors of why someone is a great diplomat for example, high charisma helps but it's not the only thing.
All I can tell you is to look at it like a math problem because that's all it basically is. That Cha 7 is just a part of the equation.
10 + 5 = 15
5 + 5 + 5 = 15
8 + 1 + 4 + 2 = 15
Three different ways to reach the same goal.
Only if you start from the assumption that social interaction is a skill check, which I don't.
If your 7 charisma character rescued the orphan girl in front of the whole town, he would become a local hero. That isn't a number, that is a subjective circumstance bonus adjudicated by the GM.
If he were to interact with someone in town, I think a reasonable GM would take into consideration the fact that he is a local hero, and that would effect how people react to him.
Similarly, the BBEG who was trying to sacrifice the orphan as part of his plot to take over the world may now specifically have issues with that player.
These are all subjective bonuses that I believe occur in most, if not all games, that are not skill checks.
My entire argument is that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are also factors that a GM should consider. The weight of that consideration varies from table to table, situation to situation, NPC to NPC. How a character defines why they are above or below average is between the GM and the PC to work out.
But it is a factor.
You seem to be arguing that generic interaction is informed by the Diplomacy skill. If this is your position, I fundamentally disagree with you, as it isn't what the skill is described as doing and it isn't in the crunch of the description. It would be like arguing you can use intimidate to make someone think you are charismatic. Diplomacy not only has very specific applications that require interactions, it has a time limitation for effectiveness. Diplomatic negotiation is a type of interaction, it is not a replacement for personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
If it isn't what you are saying, I apologize. But I also ask...
Some npcs might also treat you nice for ulterior motives even if they don't like you might not let it show. For example a greedy human general store owner really only cares about how much gold he has may treat you nice thinking you will spend more gold that way no matter what your con score even though he would mostly be indifferent.
|
@shallowsoul - I think we are saying very similar things, we just disagree on if it is skills or charisma that are more defining of the person. I would say the Iraq War vet was able to win people over in the same way the low charisma character was able to win people over by rescuing the orphan.
But the Iraq vet is still horribly disfigured, and that is a factor that a GM will consider.
I would actually argue the Iraq vet could be horribly disfigured and still have a high charisma score, due to the other factors of charisma being really high. Appearance is just one factor, and not coincidentally it is the last factor listed.
A rich guy who is a jerk can get the girl despite low charisma. An amazing performer can get the girl, that doesn't make them charismatic, that just means the other factors outweighed whatever effect his charisma may have had, just as the Veterans other factors outweighed him being disfigured.
But, he is still disfigured. It is still something that will effect how people interact with him. Other factors can mitigate, but it is still a factor.
Being a great diplomat isn't the same as being charismatic. It is being a great negotiator and manipulator.
All I am saying is that since the factors that make up charisma would be things that would influence NPC's, saying they shouldn't be considered by the GM is wrong, in the same way that all of the other factors that make people like the disfigured Iraq war veteran should be considered at part of the whole package.
Let's see...
The Charisma based skills are:
That's 7 Skills...
For some reason, a lot of people treat Charisma as if Diplomacy is all it is. It's really not.
Hey Ciretose, what if I want to play an incredibly unlucky guy who can't lie to save his life, is really obvious, is terrible with animals, can't scare people, but is really good at working out deals? Do you realize how incredibly impossible this character would be at some GMs' tables, despite being rules legal? (It requires a investment of skill points, and maybe a feat to be as good as someone with a high charisma, and still GMs have a problem with it)
@ Ragnarok Aeon - nice idea - in the end, all it takes is for the player and the DM to come to an agreement in regards to X low ability score and how it could manifest itself in-game.
And I also disagree with the broad interpretation many seem to be using for diplomacy. It isn't a catch all for all social interactions...
Once again I ask where is this idea coming from? I have not seen it. If I am trying to negotiate then a diplomacy check is in order. If not then why am I even rolling the dice?
What other instance has someone tried to use/suggested using diplomacy when it should not apply?
Being a local hero would be a circumstance bonus. I still don't think walking into a room makes someone dislike you to the extent of changing how much they would normally like you.
I am going to stop you right there, because now I am getting annoyed.
I am not saying dislike. I have never said dislike, that is the strawman created by loaba and it needs to stop being attributed to me or anyone on this side of the argument.
I am saying ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL if you have two players, one has a 7 and one has a 14, the 14 has an advantage.
This isn't saying anyone dislikes the 7, it is saying the 14 is more charismatic than the 7.
Do you disagree?
By dislike I mean change the starting attitude. If the starting attitude is not being changed then what mechanical difference is taking place?
edit:by change the starting attitude I mean have the NPC deal with one PC as if the starting attitude was unfriendly, and another PC as if the starting attitude was indifferent, as an example.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a couple posts. If you can't interact with someone civilly, then don't respond to them at all.
Also, consider walking away from the discussion when it is deadlocked.
|
|
Ciretose:
Basically what you are saying is you believe that in order to use the Diplomacy skill a PC must have at least a 10 Cha, like a prereq?
Not at all. I'm saying diplomacy is a specific skill that does a specific set of things, and that being a skill diplomat isn't the same as being charismatic any more than being really good with animals makes you charismatic.
Because you rolled a 20 diplomacy and got someone to work with you for 1d4 hours doesn't mean that person perceives you as a charismatic person. It means you convinced them to work with you, for a limited time.
Using your Iraq war veteran, he is likely a naturally charismatic person who suffered a disfiguring injury. He still has a good personality, natural leadership, etc...his appearance was effected, but that doesn't make him uncharismatic.
Similarly you may be a complete unlikable jerk, but still be an outstanding lawyer thanks to a great ability to negotiate and make connections. This would be an example of low charisma, high diplomacy.
Yes there are 7 skills associated with Charisma, there are also 7 skills associated with Dex, not counting the reflex save and range and AC bonus. Intelligence has 14 skills associated with it. Wisdom only 5, but it has the will save. Strength only has 2, but it has melee damage, encumbrance, etc...
None of the other ability score effects are limited to skills checks, why would Charisma be different? Dex has the same amount of skill associated with it, and intelligence has twice as many skills attached, and both provide additional bonuses beyond the skill checks.
Skills do not cover every situation, unless people are rolling a lot more than I think they are. Much of the games interactions come from a GM looking at circumstances surrounding the situation rather than having ongoing skill checks. Most social interactions don't even fit under the skills listed, unless you are stretching them well beyond what they are described to do.
Being really good at swimming or acrobatics does you no good when sitting around having a general conversation. Personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would.
I keep asking the question, why wouldn't a GM consider the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of a player when considering NPC interactions?
@Ragnarok Aeon - I have no issue with who you describe. That is more or less the lawyer I described above. I would completely allow that guy at my table, and we could work out what he is good and not good at.
Where I do have an issue is with players who come to the table with a low charisma and say "I am suave, people love and follow me, and I'm drop dead gorgeous." and then get mad when the Bard who actually has the scores to back up that description gets the due benefits of having those kind of scores during conversations and general social interactions.
You cheat the other players who invested the points in having a good personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance if you don't take those into consideration in social interactions.
There is a lot more to Player/GM conversation than rolling dice to see if you are getting drunk (Would that be a con or a fort check...)
Because you rolled a 20 diplomacy and got someone to work with you for 1d4 hours doesn't mean that person perceives you as a charismatic person. It means you convinced them to work with you, for a limited time.
I agree.
I keep asking the question, why wouldn't a GM consider the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of a player when considering NPC interactions?
I need examples. That is why I asked the question in my last post about how it would manifest mechanically.
Where I do have an issue is with players who come to the table with a low charisma and say "I am suave, people love and follow me, and I'm drop dead gorgeous." and then get mad when the Bard who actually has the scores to back up that description gets the due benefits of having those kind of scores during conversations and general social interactions.
I have never seen anyone get upset about that. I am assuming the bard picks up the ladies, as an example, and the low cha character does not. If that example is correct then the high cha guy should be the one taking women back to his room.
What has he proven? Certain points have not even been clarified yet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you rolled a 20 diplomacy and got someone to work with you for 1d4 hours doesn't mean that person perceives you as a charismatic person. It means you convinced them to work with you, for a limited time.
I agree.
I keep asking the question, why wouldn't a GM consider the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of a player when considering NPC interactions?I need examples. That is why I asked the question in my last post about how it would manifest mechanically.
Where I do have an issue is with players who come to the table with a low charisma and say "I am suave, people love and follow me, and I'm drop dead gorgeous." and then get mad when the Bard who actually has the scores to back up that description gets the due benefits of having those kind of scores during conversations and general social interactions.I have never seen anyone get upset about that. I am assuming the bard picks up the ladies, as an example, and the low cha character does not. If that example is correct then the high cha guy should be the one taking women back to his room.
If all other things are equal.
This is the key. It is a factor, but not the factor. If the high charisma guy does something to offend, it doesn't matter. But all things being equal, the high charisma guy has advantages over the low charisma guy.
I have seen people argue that it is cruel to not let a low charisma character be just as suave as a high charisma character if they put points in diplomacy.
All I am saying is that since charisma is supposed to reflect factors that would be important in social interaction, the GM should consider those factors, along with all other factors they would consider.
I personally don't know why this is controversial.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have seen people argue that it is cruel to not let a low charisma character be just as suave as a high charisma character if they put points in diplomacy.
Then maybe you should take your case to those people instead of to the people in this thread who have never argued any such thing.
That's got to be like the third time I've seen you say "Some people think X" and described something like the above which no one in this thread is actually advocating, and then arguing against it.
And then since the people you're talking to tend to assume that your words to them are a reply to THEM and not to some other people you've talked to in the past (go figure, right?), all the arguments you present come across all wrong.
Respond to what these people right now are saying, not what someone said once somewhere else.
I think the issue is that others to include myself read your statement as giving the high cha guy more things than what you were stating because other people have argued for things you have not.
You want to pick up the girl or be the center of attention then boost charisma. I can agree with that.
If by "being suave", you mean a character with a high diplomacy but a low charisma being able to weasel himself into a conversation, you pretty much give an example of my point. What's the point of putting ranks into skills if your GM decides that you can't use them because your attributes are in the way; penalty be damned, it's too good for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that is what he means. Basically the guy that turns heads when he enters into the room before he even utters a word. The guy that women are attracted to instantly.
Of course he might say something stupid and mess it all up, but he oozes charisma at least before he opens his mouth.
Let's discuss a different attribute, dexterity and acrobatics. I make a character with low dexterity, but I decide to put them into acrobatics. By level 5, I have gone as far from overcoming my penalty to being able to walk tight ropes, maneuver through vines and oil slicks, and jump across gaping canyons. Now lets say there is GM X who decides that because of my terrible dexterity, I have to make a dex check to run (something not covered by the rules) and so now, I fall head first into a pit despite my excellent acrobatics score. Congrats on making the skill useless GM X. GM X would go on about how I'm cheesing because a "clumsy character" should not be able to do cartwheels. Never mind that I'm getting ripped off in initiative, reflex saves, and even other dex skills, and that I'm using skill points to compensate...
If by "being suave", you mean a character with a high diplomacy but a low charisma being able to weasel himself into a conversation, you pretty much give an example of my point. What's the point of putting ranks into skills if your GM decides that you can't use them because your attributes are in the way; penalty be damned, it's too good for you.
Like I said, the low CHA guy and the DM just need to figure out what it means. There is a "soft" CHA check of sorts.
17 CHA Sorcerer and 7 CHA Fighter walk into a bar...
insert punchline here
They head to the bar. The bartender comes over and asks the Sorcerer what he wants. When he's done speaking he nods at the Fighter, as if to say "and what do you want as well."
The bartender never actually speaks to the Fighter because he was simply more interested in speaking to the charismatic Sorcerer. At the same time, it's not like he was rude or anything, just the Fighter was second on the list.
To me, that's a "soft" CHA check. It doesn't really mean anything. It's not like the Fighter can't engage the barkeep. He can, but he probably has to break the ice the first.
/ like I said earlier - as long as the DM and the player are one the same page with what the "soft" check means, it's all good.
|
|
Let's discuss a different attribute, dexterity and acrobatics. I make a character with low dexterity, but I decide to put them into acrobatics. By level 5, I have gone as far from overcoming my penalty to being able to walk tight ropes, maneuver through vines and oil slicks, and jump across gaping canyons. Now lets say there is GM X who decides that because of my terrible dexterity, I have to make a dex check to run (something not covered by the rules) and so now, I fall head first into a pit despite my excellent acrobatics score. Congrats on making the skill useless GM X. GM X would go on about how I'm cheesing because a "clumsy character" should not be able to do cartwheels. Never mind that I'm getting ripped off in initiative, reflex saves, and even other dex skills, and that I'm using skill points to compensate...
This is what Dexterity says it covers.
"Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance."
This is what Charisma says it covers
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
If you GM says you can't run without making a check, he is an idiot, since nothing in the description says anything about running. So I think your example is a strawman.
Conversely, if a GM is saying "Your low charisma should be reflected in your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, how would you like to do that?" IMHO Your GM is using common sense and good reading skills.
|
|
If by "being suave", you mean a character with a high diplomacy but a low charisma being able to weasel himself into a conversation, you pretty much give an example of my point. What's the point of putting ranks into skills if your GM decides that you can't use them because your attributes are in the way; penalty be damned, it's too good for you.Like I said, the low CHA guy and the DM just need to figure out what it means. There is a "soft" CHA check of sorts.
17 CHA Sorcerer and 7 CHA Fighter walk into a bar...
insert punchline here
They head to the bar. The bartender comes over and asks the Sorcerer what he wants. When he's done speaking he nods at the Fighter, as if to say "and what do you want as well."
The bartender never actually speaks to the Fighter because he was simply more interested in speaking to the charismatic Sorcerer. At the same time, it's not like he was rude or anything, just the Fighter was second on the list.
To me, that's a "soft" CHA check. It doesn't really mean anything. It's not like the Fighter can't engage the barkeep. He can, but he probably has to break the ice the first.
/ like I said earlier - as long as the DM and the player are one the same page with what the "soft" check means, it's all good.
How did we suddenly get on the same page and agree. It's weird.
Basically, to me, a "soft" check is primarily used when a "hard" check isn't applicable.
/edit: I also think that soft checks are largely RP/fluff related, while hard checks are obviously quite crunchy.
Milton or Lumberg? ;-)I'd put this about a 3 Charisma.
:)
Lumberg is the man. I mean, I wouldn't show him my O-face or anything...
Actually... I have dumped dexterity, trying to make a somewhat clumsy rogue. Had an 8 in dexterity, I put ranks into acrobatics, said situation (making a jump check, but GM decided I needed a reflex save "because of bad balance" before I even got the check) actually happened. In the end I raised dexterity (because having additional 'roleplaying' counter measures added onto being penalized to hell for having a low dexterity was just too much)
I agree that out of context, a high charisma would naturally have better influence, but what if we add some flavor such as the bartender respects martial types and is actually a bit weary of magic types? What if that fighter invested 6 skill points (or maybe 3 skill points and a skill focus feat) to be just slightly better at negotiating with people than the sorcerer with freaky scales who's never actually even tried to learn to deal with people.
But you know what, you're right; Getting people's attention isn't really covered by diplomacy, but it's kind of necessary in order to use it... Like being able to run without tripping to perform a jump.
The point is that there are aspects of the game where it's not really clear where it's covered.
In such cases as who to talk to first or who to attack first, it's best to actually take into consideration about how the players present their characters along with attributes and skills. While the attributes provide a general base, skills, feats, and abilities can modify how a character is presented.
I made him take a fort save to climb a rope because of his 7 con. Someone helped him up.
It's a troll! Kill it with fire!
I say that only because Climb is an untrained skill. :P
Let's discuss a different attribute, dexterity and acrobatics. I make a character with low dexterity, but I decide to put them into acrobatics.Not that such a character would ever exist. I mean, who dumps Dex?
Either an Oracle (Lore) with Side-step secret, or an Oracle (Nature) with Natures Wispers. CHA to AC instead of DEX + to Reflex/CMD depending on which one you go with.
I've played a Nature Oracle with a considerably good acrobatics score with a DEX of 6.
Only if you start from the assumption that social interaction is a skill check, which I don't.
A lot of people do think it is a skill check and/or they play it that way.
If your 7 charisma character rescued the orphan girl in front of the whole town, he would become a local hero. That isn't a number, that is a subjective circumstance bonus adjudicated by the GM.If he were to interact with someone in town, I think a reasonable GM would take into consideration the fact that he is a local hero, and that would effect how people react to him.
Similarly, the BBEG who was trying to sacrifice the orphan as part of his plot to take over the world may now specifically have issues with that player.
These are all subjective bonuses that I believe occur in most, if not all games, that are not skill checks.
I agree subjective bonuses should be used, that don't change the argument that char 7 with skill focus diplomacy, bluff disguise and 12 ranks in those skills would be better at Social interaction than any char with 14 char and no ranks. At least that is what a lot of people think.
So yes, the hero can get some s*x at the ned of the day even with 8 char due to thouse subjective bonuses. If he/she has 10 ranks in diplomacy a GM may even give hem/her more subjective bonuses.
My entire argument is that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are also factors that a GM should consider. The weight of that consideration varies from table to table, situation to situation, NPC to NPC. How a character defines why they are above or below average is between the GM and the PC to work out.But it is a factor.
It's not a factor. You think it's a factor and a lot of people would agree with you, but it's not a factor as in "Factor = an objective truth". At least not to all.
Also, This is a role playing game. Any GM might just as well give a bonus to a witty player, even if that player plays a character with char 8 or 7.
The stats the selves seldom have any important beyond affecting a check that already have other modifiers.
A level 10 gnome with str 5 and max out his climb will be better at climbing than a level 10 paladin with str 18 and only two or three ranks in the skill. Int checks are quite uncommon in our games, knowledge checks and other checks are more common.
I think the Devs could have focused more on how and when to use charisma, but they didn't. Now it's up to every GM to deal with it the way he/she see fit.
Me I almost always play characters with high charisma and I haven't been rolling charisma checks that many times at our table. Nor have the other players regardless if they have char 8 or char 14. I'm not saying I right or our GM is right. I only point out we all have our way of playing the game and applying the rules.
|
|
Me I almost always play characters with high charisma and I haven't been rolling charisma checks that many times at our table.
Where have I said you roll charisma checks?
Exactly. I didn't. I actually specifically said you don't.
You don't roll "He saved the orphan checks" either. As a DM you do consider the fact that he saved the orphan and adjust how the NPC's would act according, because it is something that factors in to how NPC's act toward each other. So are personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Now I want to do an entire rant thread on how people say you say thing you don't say...not just you Zark, but it is getting really old...
Where have I said you roll charisma checks?
[...and other hostile stuff]
I didn't I say you did.
I was only trying to point out that people read the rules and play the game in different ways. I might actually agree with you more than you might think.
Another of my points was: If you want to measure a NPC's reaction to a char 7 person mechanically, letting the PC rolling a char check is one way. It's not the only way or even a good way. You may not even need to measure a reaction mechanically. The GM can simply say how the NPC react. We, at our gaming table, use both. Stat roll and skill roll. Stat rolls are very uncommon especially when you based on charisma, skill checks on the other hand is very common. That is how we play the game.
If you want to do an entire rant thread on how people say you say thing you don't say....start with yourself. Your attack on me was uncalled for. As I said. I agree with a lot of what you posted, not all, and I if I misread you could at least give me the benefit of the doubt and just explain to me what and where I made my mistake.
Your and some of the other posters in this thread are or have been behaving just as bad as OP trying to spotlight.
BTW, wouldn't it be better to take this charisma stuff to another thread instead on treadjacking this one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, wouldn't it be better to take this charisma stuff to another thread instead on treadjacking this one?
A good idea in theory, if a couple hundred posts late :)
|
|
Where have I said you roll charisma checks?
[...and other hostile stuff]
I didn't I say you did.
The paragraph from your post,
"Me I almost always play characters with high charisma and I haven't been rolling charisma checks that many times at our table. Nor have the other players regardless if they have char 8 or char 14. I'm not saying I right or our GM is right. I only point out we all have our way of playing the game and applying the rules."
Implies that my side is saying it is a check. We are not, have not, did not.
I said "Why wouldn't a GM consider the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of a player when considering NPC interactions?"
And additionally I have said that unless you are rolling all social interactions (what you implied you are not doing but I am) than skill checks would not apply as they don't reflect personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance based on either the description in the text or the crunch in the write up.
But charisma does.
As to move it to another thread, you responded to the post about the side conversation, and are now telling me to stop posting about the side conversation?
(board ate my post, trying to re-phrase)
Well, I see nothing wrong in making Charisma a factor in determining the NPCs initial disposition. Initial disposition. From there, you're in good old Diplomacy territory if you want to change that disposition.
Problem is, with the system only supporting five clearly defined dispositions, this would probably mean that you'd have to create a table that tanslates a random roll (there's some chance to come off extraordinarily well or giving off a bad vibe), plus Charisma modifier, plus other modifiers (which may or may not include attire, gender, race, class, renown, previous actions and whatever) into the NPCs initial reaction to the PC. 'Other modifiers' being, of course, dependent on the particular NPC in question.
However, you're pretty much on your own with this approach; the system does not exactly support this endeavor out of the box.
LOL or :-(
This thread has given the OP some of the answer he/she needed.
If I understand ciretose correctly not all game play can be boiled down to a die roll. This is one reason why people get up set on both sides, roll players and role players.
I usually see more hostility from roll players, but they the hostility on the other hand is usually directed more often to another roll player.
But role players are more prone to attack roll players, than the other way round (sorry my crappy English). That is my experience.
One of the thing I find irritating with a lot of the optimizers are the idea that Optimizing is equal to DPR or creating a one trick pony.
To me Optimizing is about this:
edit:
Optimization does not equal maximized DPR. Optimization is the act of building to meet a goal, and using the correct tools to accomplish this. The statement should generally hold true if you aren't trying to pidgeonhole players into thinking in only one form.
Kazejin's post is perhaps my all time favorite post on this messageboard.
But it is only valid if you understand what and how your goal will affect the game. If your goal will ruin the game for everybody else then you have failed. Regardless if you are a roll player or a role player.
"I have char 7 but I'm gonna roleplay char 14" is one example, but it is not the only one. Creating a crappy "but very fynny" character and getting killed all the time is another one.
I think a lot of people will get provoked at the idea that there is some objective way of Optimize class X or Y and that there is some objective way on how you should create a character that is supposed to be X.
When some people say there is no conflict between Optimization and role playing I agree. However a lot of the Optimizers on the Messageboards are not Optimizers, they just what max DPR, but optimization and maxing out DPR are not necessarily the same.
I am sad that they are treated as the same most of the time on these Messageboards.
Seriously who many thread have you see titled "help me flesh out my character" or "role playing advice needed"?
If I wanted to play a fighter- Let's say a swashbuckler kind of a character with some Errol Flynn flavor, people would give me the advice to dump char even though Errol Flynn was a charismatic.
If I said: "Hey I want to play a swashbuckler that can fight and he should be good at acrobatics, diplomacy and bluff and have some pirate flavor, someone like Captain Jack Sparrow or Zorro." I would then go on fleshing out what kind of character he is.
What kind of response would I get? My bet is most answers would be focused on the DPR OR the flavor of the different classes. Some would suggest bard or rogue, or a fighter/bard or even fighter/sorcerer, just beacuse my character has some charisma, but I seriously don't think many would suggest a fighter with charisma 12, some descent Intelligence, some levels of duelist and traits that gives you diplomacy as a class skill.
I do think that you can Role play and Optimize, but on these Messageboards a lot of the so called Optimizers don't care for characters, they only care for DPR or creating a one trick pony. If I, an Optimizer myself, feel get a bit tired of this, how would this effect the so called role player. How would if affect someone new to the game?
Implies that my side is saying it is a check. We are not, have not, did not.
I repeat myself a last time.
How WE play the game.First you claim I've said that you said you roll charisma checks?
Now, It's I implied.
True I responed out of cobntext. My bad. I'm sorry.
And you still ignore my point. My main point 'some do it this way, some do it that way.'
As to move it to another thread, you responded to the post about the side conversation, and are now telling me to stop posting about the side conversation?
I thought it would be a good idea to get pack to the OP.
|
|
I think the problem is the two groups have different goals, and therefore can not co-exist at the same table without ruining the game for each other.
The “role” player is trying to immerse themselves into the setting and create a hero who lives in a defined world.
The “roll” player is trying to create the most effective character that can be allowed by the rule set.
These are not compatible. Stormwind me all you like, but if you are trying to fit the setting you start from adapting your character to the setting, and someone else is trying to argue for something fringe to the setting for mechanical reasons, you aren’t seeking the same goal.
Both sides have fringe elements that bug me personally. The “story” side where it is cruel for your GM to ever put you in real danger bug me. The “No one should be mean to my Drow Noble Lich” side bugs me.
But at root, all of the conflict comes from a legitimate conflict between two completely different approaches to the game.
And frankly, we all know this. The terms fluff and crunch exist on here for a reason.
My group has reached a happy medium, but many, many people on here would not be welcome at the table because they would ruin the game for us. And vice versa I would not be welcome at their table.
I argue so veraciously for my style on here for one reason, and one reason only. I want to get support for it, and I don’t want the consensus to drift away from how I want my game to be run.
Similarly, the very crunchy and very fluffy argue on here to move the game towards the way they want to play.
I personally like structure in my game. I want as both a player and a GM, for the players to look at the setting and adapt to it, rather than the other way around. If you have a cool idea that doesn’t fit what we are doing in this session, save it for another game or run it yourself. We are entering into a social contract at the table to play together in they style we all agreed to play.
I don’t expect others to play the way I play, but when they argue for something I find anathema to how the people I play with want to play, I challenge it. For example in the ongoing derail I admittedly cause, when people say that charisma has no effect on the game outside of dice rolling, I so fundamentally think that approach would ruin the style of play I prefer and unbalance the game that I will engage in back and forth with the advocates in the hopes of if not changing their opinions, at least letting everyone else know that position is “a” position, not “the” position.
Because if you don’t, it could become consensus, and if it becomes consensus, the actual rules could be changed to reflect the new paradigm of game play.
The Devs aren’t going to weigh in on Roll play vs Role play (although if you read their campaigns, they seem to be Role players…) because why alienate a group of customers on either side.
But it isn’t wrong to do so. The person you are responding to made a statement on a public forum with the intention of having people read it so they would be influenced by there opinion. With that, you have to expect people to respond to you with disagreement.
If you don’t want your views challenged, keep them to yourself. Many, many people have confronted what I’ve said on here (in this thread actually) and often we argue to from confrontation to consensus (hi loaba). That is the purpose of debate. It isn’t a problem, it is a solution. So long as everyone actually is discussing the topic rather than each others mothers.
But it is a legitimate disagreement that doesn't have a resolution, the tone is the issue, not the content.
Seriously out of context, and off topic to boot:
WTF the much-quoted Stormwind Fallacy?
I'm here to help you :-)
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
But this is also a good point.
On the "Stormwind fallacy". It is rarely invoked properly by those who want to use it to support their optimization.
The stormwind fallacy simply says that role playing and roll playing are orthogonal, which they are.
It says nothing about the tendency of players to focus on one or the other, which is what most players do.
While it is absolutely correct to argue that role playing and roll playing can exist in the same person, it is also absolutely correct to point out that in my experience there does seem to be an inverse correlation between the two in MOST players. Players who do both equally are extremely rare imho. In my own experience those who top the munchkin scale are typically near the bottom of the role play scale and vice versa.
And that can, in part at least, be explained simply by pointing out that both require effort, and while they don't necessarily exclude each other from a logical perspective, people only have so much energy they can devote to the game. So they invest more energy in that part of the game they enjoy more. The end result is a correlation between the two where the more energy is invested in one aspect, the less energy is available to invest in the other.
And that can, in part at least, be explained simply by pointing out that both require effort, and while they don't necessarily exclude each other from a logical perspective, people only have so much energy they can devote to the game. So they invest more energy in that part of the game they enjoy more. The end result is a correlation between the two where the more energy is invested in one aspect, the less energy is available to invest in the other.
Seconded, thirded, and fourthed.
Add the effects that (during encounters) many players will not invest more energy than necessary into accomplishing the group's goal. Which means, if I already got the 'I win' spelled out on my character sheet, why come up with ideas? Boom, we're down to pure roll-playing.
It says nothing about the tendency of players to focus on one or the other, which is what most players do.
I have heard that "most" players do this a lot on these boards, but haven't yet seen it in real life. Pretty much everyone in my home game optimizes to a fair extent -- in some cases unconsciously; in others intentionally -- but we're also talking about inveterate role players, people who talk in character, develop portraits and detailed back-stories and cultural notes and friends and family and homelands, the whole shebang.
The only time I've ever seen good role-playing NOT go hand-in-hand with some degree of optimization is with people who are new to RPGs and don't yet really grok how the rules work.
Regarding "splitting energy" -- we're talking about a game that people play for hours at a time. Most people I know who play regularly get into all aspects of it. Saying they won't do so is like saying "most soccer players either run or kick the ball; most of them don't bother to do both during the same game."
It says nothing about the tendency of players to focus on one or the other, which is what most players do.I have heard that "most" players do this a lot on these boards, but haven't yet seen it in real life. Pretty much everyone in my home game optimizes to a fair extent -- in some cases unconsciously; in others intentionally -- but we're also talking about inveterate role players, people who talk in character, develop portraits and detailed back-stories and cultural notes and friends and family and homelands, the whole shebang.
The only time I've ever seen good role-playing NOT go hand-in-hand with some degree of optimization is with people who are new to RPGs and don't yet really grok how the rules work.
Edit:
I agree with you to some extent but Adamantine Dragon still has a point.
I do have the The Stormwind Fallacy on my profile page (as Tom John), but it is always good not to draw things in black and white.
The Stormwind Fallacy tells the 'truth', but is not the whole truth.